> Isn't OOP supposed to be about bringing everyday human things as the paradigm for thinking?
Not really. That's just the metaphors that are used for teaching. Really just for introducing the concept, if the teacher is any good. Because it's not very helpful for what developers actually do most of the time.
If you want to believe Alan Kay, it's about "messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things", and almost everyone's been doing it wrong since the 70s. Oh, and he actually "thought of objects being like biological cells".
Personally, I'd say it's most importantly about encapsulating state with the code that operates on it.
I made my point in the first comment I made on this thread. Whatever it is, it is lacking something for human brains to grasp it.
My point is that people are doing it wrong because the names don't help. It was called _Smalltalk_, wasn't it? Like a casual friendly conversation. These more technical descriptions are behind the theory of it, not what is actually supposed to look like when applied.
I don't need to know that doors have hinges or the complex manufacturing of locks to call a door a door. When I open a lock, I don't need to call it a "mechanical system of pins and springs" or anything else.
Not really. That's just the metaphors that are used for teaching. Really just for introducing the concept, if the teacher is any good. Because it's not very helpful for what developers actually do most of the time.
If you want to believe Alan Kay, it's about "messaging, local retention and protection and hiding of state-process, and extreme late-binding of all things", and almost everyone's been doing it wrong since the 70s. Oh, and he actually "thought of objects being like biological cells".
Personally, I'd say it's most importantly about encapsulating state with the code that operates on it.